User Reviews

"Beyong A Reasonable Doubt" is an offbeat thriller with a fascinating plot about two men who devise a dangerous scheme to expose the flawed nature of the legal system, the uncertain value of circumstantial evidence and the inherent dangers of using the death penalty as a form of punishment for certain crimes. The clever set-up for the story, a number of entertaining plot twists and a good deal of suspense make the whole film compelling to watch and compensate greatly for some of its shortcomings which appear to be attributable mainly to its low budget.

Newspaper publisher Austin Spencer (Sidney Blackmer) is an opponent of capital punishment who's become concerned about the conduct of his local D.A. Roy Thompson (Philip Bourneuf) who regularly uses circumstantial evidence to secure convictions for crimes which are punishable by the death penalty. Austin's concerns relate to the unreliable nature of the evidence, the risk of an innocent man being executed and the belief that the D.A. is more concerned with gaining publicity to advance his political career than he is about ensuring that the justice system operates fairly.

Austin explains his concerns to Tom Garrett (Dana Andrews) a novelist who used to work for him as a reporter and suggests a plan that could lead to an innocent man being sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit. If the plan could be carried out successfully and the man's innocence could subsequently be proved, the use of capital punishment could be effectively discredited.

Tom, who's engaged to be married to Austin's daughter Susan (Joan Fontaine), agrees to be framed for the murder of a nightclub dancer and as he plants various items of phony evidence, Austin takes photographs which could later be used to prove that Tom's not the murderer. The plan seems to work well and Tom is eventually arrested and tried before the jury withdraw to consider their verdict. At this point, as planned, Austin gathers together the various documents and photographs that will prove Tom's innocence but before he's able to present them to the appropriate officials he's killed in a car crash and all the material that he's carrying which is pertinent to the case is burned in the wreckage. This leaves Tom in an incredibly tight spot and the developments that follow are genuinely surprising.

It's deeply ironic that the two men whose scheme is intended to highlight the unfairness and deficiencies of the justice system actually have no concerns about misleading the police by planting false evidence, wasting their time in processing the case or impeding them in their pursuit of the real culprit. Furthermore, both men have no scruples about their plans to exploit the scheme for their own profit as it will provide good material for Austin's newspapers and Tom's next book.

"Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" is a real no-frills production with some acting performances which are rather perfunctory in nature. The main strengths of this movie however, are its lively pace, its wonderfully bizarre plot and the unexpected twists which make it so intriguing and enjoyable to watch.

Fritz Lang's last film in America saw him reunited with some of the people with whom he had made WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS, and while the budget is still clearly poverty row, once again he comes up with a terrific commentary on the ills at the heart of fifties America. This time, it's the death penalty that forms the centrepiece of the film - or it seems to be, since that's the plot motor. But look closer, and you'll find it's actually about two of Lang's most familiar subjects: guilt and hypocrisy. Almost everyone in the film lives a double life, most obviously Dana Andrews' writer, but even Joan Fontaine's deeply frustrated spinster, who really can't wait to marry Andrews, and whose horror, when she discovers his double life is palpable. Lang floats above his subject matter elegantly, occasionally dipping his toe into the sleaze (a wonderful scene towards the end with a Miami strip-joint owner), getting terrific performances and indicting an entire society.

The owner of an important newspaper Austin Spencer (Sidney Blackmer) opposes to the capital punishment and particularly to the prosecutor Roy Thompson (Philip Bourneuf), who has just succeeded in a trial based on circumstantial evidences. When a dancer is strangled and the police have no suspect, Austin convinces his future son-in-law, the prominent writer Tom Garrett (Dana Andrews), to plant circumstantial evidences to self-incriminate, while he would hold pictures, receipts and other evidences of his innocence until the very last moment. Later Austin would begin a campaign in his newspaper disclosing the possibility of sending an innocent to the electric chair. They decide to hide the truth from Austin's daughter Susan (Joan Fontaine) since she could not support the situation under stress. When the jury withdraws from the court in the end of the trial to give the sentence, Austin takes the evidences that prove the innocence of Tom from his safe, but has a car accident and dies. Tom is sentenced to death penalty and tries to convince Susan of his innocence as his last hope.

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is a great film-noir with a surprising twist in the very end. The plot seems to be naive - who would accept to be accused of murder just to prove a point against the death penalty? - but after the very last twist, the concept changes from naive to Machiavellian. I have glanced unfair reviews in IMDb that I do not agree, since I liked this movie a lot. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Suplício de uma Alma" ("Torment of a Soul")

Opening with a death-row electrocution and ending at the moment in which a man is presumably sentenced to the same fate, Reasonable Doubt is defined by its audacious, sensationalistic arrangement of events. The story's anti-capital punishment premise—a struggling writer frames himself for murder to prove the fallibility of the death penalty—obviously lends itself to pulpy embellishment, but the film's most spectacular feat is its jaw-dropping last-reel twist, which puts its own purported moral stance through the ringer by positing emotion as the true determiner of principles. Lang baldly manipulates the audience with this reversal, but his purpose, deeper than momentary awe, is to illustrate the eternal conflict in society between humankind's self-preserving unpredictability and its own noble, if constantly undermined, search for unified moral judgments. What ultimately transcends the stodginess of the theoretical conversations between the main players and their necessarily shallow characterizations (the film hinges on befuddlement for a reason) is Lang's empathy for a condemned man, a sensibility fully embodied in two shots: a close-up on a revoked certificate of pardon and the reverse shot of its regarder as he sadly considers freedom for the last time. In retrospect, the story's outcome is established in one of its very first shots, as the guilty party looks unblinkingly upon an execution while the other spectators turn away in disgust. Lang's thesis is easily described after all: the only man who can emotionlessly observe the practice of capital punishment is himself a murderer.

When we think of the great Hollywood films, we probably think of sensuality, the way they manipulate our emotions through suspense, fear, laughter, sensation, melodrama. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT might seem to be the antithesis of this kind of film - its cold, formal, mathematical, forbidding distance. It is as brutally insensitive to audience weaknesses as Tom Garrett is to his fiancee - like Lang, he creates a plot to prove something; his lack of humanity, though, counteracts the supposed humanitarianism of his cause, even before we discover his real motives.

DOUBT is a cruel movie, which makes its 'implausibility' and 'unrealism' (sic?) part of its theme. Most Hollywood films offer us a hero, no matter how flawed, with whom an audience can identify, with whom they can experience the ups and downs, joys and pains, dangers and relief; he will generally have some redeeming feature, eg Norman Bates' gentleness, Roger Thornhill's charm. Lang refuses us such luxury. Tom is a deeply unpleasant man from the start. There are two realms in the film, that of life, a passive realm, of women, who depend on the time and money of men, who must prostitute themselves for status (both Susan and the strippers); this is a sensual world of the body.

Then there is the male realm, icy, intellectual, where plans are hatched, where gods tamper with life and law, use them as playthings, ideas. Tom's dilemma is that he belongs to both. Initially, we are led to suspect that Tom's decision to experiment is a chance to slum, to visit the seedy dives prohibited by his airless upper-middle-class milieu before his marriage, an example of double standards in a male-dominated society.

But even at an early stage, the ease with which he assumes his role, his familiarity with the environment, the codes, the language, make one suspicious. So then we query Austin's interest, his chilling suggestion to use a man as a guinea-pig to test the unfairness of capital punishment. He is the classic liberal in the abstract, the sort of man who would justify the gulags as necessary for the greater good. When Tom fobs Susan off with an affirmation of physical desire, we notice Austin's strange look, and wonder if he is trying to set Tom up, wary of his social ambitions or sexual predatoriness (where is Mrs. Spencer)?

Tom is a classic noir (and even Victorian) split personality. He navigates two environments, two histories, two (even three) women. Either way, he has committed two crimes, either killing the girl, or planting evidence, obstructing the course of justice. This is a bleak Hollywood instance of the 'hero' being punished, killed, revealed not to be a hero. So who is? Hardly Susan, a mere nuisance in the men's big schemes - her taking over power, by running the paper, and trying to inject emotion into the chilly plot by sentimental appeal dries up like a tear in the desert. Her ex-lover, the dull, dutiful policeman, is in the ironic position of trying to save a murderer from death row, so the latter can marry the woman he loves (the sordid sexual engine of this plot motor is unmistakable and unpleasant).

DOUBT has been praised for its geometric austerity, its theorem-like drive. Every shot is dominated by lines, rectangles, and especially triangles, from the sets and camera movements to the placing of characters. But what does the theorem demonstrate? The easy manipulation of American justice (Tom is only foiled by a stupid slip)? The inability of anything, law, art etc. to explain the randomness of life? In its extreme formalism, its spare mise-en-scene, its profusion of screens in different scenes (eg the restaurant and the courtroom) makes the film feel Oriental, and, like AI NO CORRIDA, there is an analysis of surveillance in the public sphere, from the cameras recoding the trial to the DA's trampling the spirit of the law for political gain. There are two extraordinary sequences in this chilling film - the opening execution, a mixture of funeral march and dream; and the pan in the jail over the prisoners that must have been in Godard's head when he made WEEK END.

I liked this film because while it dealt with a tough subject (the morality of the death penalty--particularly in cases where there is circumstantial evidence), it was not preachy and didn't have any obvious answers. I could easily see this movie as being enjoyable to those opposed to the death penalty or those who want to see its widespread use--the film presents so many arguments for both opinions as well as those in the middle. It's actually pretty rare to see a film accomplish so much.

Dana Andrews plays a writer who is dating Joan Fontaine. Her father is an editor of a newspaper who is anti-capital punishment and he convinces Andrews to 'set himself up' for murder using only circumstantial evidence. This is to prove that an innocent man could easily be convicted on such evidence and this would supposedly make for an excellent book. So, once an unsolved murder occurred, they step-by-step created evidence that pointed in Andrews' direction but was not damning in and of itself--taking photos that proved the whole thing was orchestrated. One of several holes in the story is that if this REALLY was done, the legal system would not be very forgiving of a man who cost the state a fortune in legal expenses--all for a book! The plan seems to be working out just fine,...that is until the editor is killed in a car crash and the evidence exonerating Andrews is destroyed in the resulting fire!! Now Andrews is about to be convicted and there's no one who can prove it's all a set-up! I liked how towards the end the story took many unexpected turns and was a real thinking-person's film. Unfortunately, the ending is both very interesting but a bit hard to believe. I suggest you just watch it and try not to think about this weak ending too much, as the rest of the film is pretty dandy and engaging. Dana Andrews and director Fritz Lang, as usual, did a fine job.

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT isn't a bad slice of 1950s crime and indeed it has one of those one-off story lines (like DOA) which is thoroughly intriguing. The film involves a crusading journalist, staunchly fighting against the death sentence, who decides to implicate himself in a murder case in a bid to expose flaws in the justice system. Inevitably it all goes wrong, with horrendous consequences for himself and his loved ones.

The film is directed by Fritz Lang and is his last American movie, and you can sense his heart wasn't really in the material. The ending in particular feels tacked on and unbelievable. As a whole the film lacks the sense of mystery and atmosphere of the likes of WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS and SCARLET STREET, but that's not to say it's bad; it just could have been even better.

None of these things change the fact that the plot's a good 'un, even if there's one twist too many along the way. Dana Andrews makes for a solid and dependable leading man as always, and it's nice to see Joan Fontaine playing his love interest, even if she has little to do. Lang directs the various shock and drama scenes effectively and the courtroom spectacle is where this film comes to life, but something I can't quite put my finger on is lacking so I was left slightly disappointed.

'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (1956),' another taut thriller from Fritz Lang, takes an intriguing concept and runs with it. Tom Garrett (Dana Andrews), a writer looking for an idea, and Austin Spencer (Sidney Blackmer), an editorialist against capital punishment, contrive a bizarre scheme to expose the flaws in the American legal system. Garrett agrees to set himself up as the prime suspect in a murder, using only circumstantial evidence. Spencer agrees to withhold the evidence of his innocence until after Garrett is convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. Joan Fontaine plays Susan Spencer, Garret's fiancée, who isn't let in on the ruse. The moment when Austin Spencer is killed in a car accident, leaving our hero seemingly without any hope of reprieve, is still shocking despite its inevitability, leaving a powerful feeling of hopelessness. The film's final twist, however, I did not see coming. Regrettably, 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' pulls yet another twist in its final seconds; it would've been better had the film been made a decade later, free from the restraints of the Production Code, which demanded (and received) an ending that "does not lower the moral standards" of audiences.

This is Lang's final movie in America.He was to make another two-part movie in Germany but the latter can easily be dismissed compare to'beyond a reasonable doubt".Prologue:an execution scene,filmed with an absolute intelligence :instead of focusing on the condemned person,the camera searches those who watch a human being die:priest,wardens,executioner,journalists and among them the hero (Dana Andrews).The black and white cinematography is austere,unspectacular,and it will remains so during the whole projection. The hero's soon-to-be father-in-law,who attended the execution too, wants to demonstrate the absurdity of death penalty.He asks Andrews to play the wrong man,guilty of murder;he would bring the proofs or evidences of his innocence just before his execution.To reveal more would make me a spoiler.Suffice to say the suspense is constant,the plot unlikely (Hitchcock's screenplays were too) but fascinating.In France,this movie is praised by the unanimous critics as a peak of the film noir.Give it a chance,it deserves it!

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" was the last Hollywood film of German-born director Fritz Lang. It is a crime drama with a strange premise- a man plants evidence to incriminate himself in a crime. The man in question is Tom Garrett, a successful novelist who is engaged to Susan, the daughter of a newspaper proprietor named Austin Spencer. Spencer is leading a crusade against capital punishment, and discusses with his prospective son-in-law a scheme he has concocted to discredit the death penalty. He will wait until a murder is committed for which the police have no obvious suspects. He and an accomplice will then plant evidence at the scene of the crime implicating the accomplice in the murder. The accomplice will be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. At this point Spencer will come forward with the evidence which will prove the man's innocence, leading to his release and (or so Spencer hopes) to the abolition of capital punishment in the State.

Shortly afterwards a stripper named Patti Gray is found strangled, and Garrett volunteers to act as guinea-pig in Spencer's scheme. He and Spencer plant evidence suggesting Garrett's guilt, and he is duly arrested and placed on trial for Patti's murder. A series of plot twists then follow. Spencer, the one man who can prove Garrett's innocence, is killed in a car crash, and the documentary evidence of Garrett's innocence is presumed to have been destroyed along with his car. Garrett attempts to tell the court about his part in Spencer's scheme, but he is not believed and is convicted. At the last minute the vital documents are discovered in Spencer's safe, and when they are proved to be genuine the prosecution recommend to the State Governor that Garrett be pardoned.

There is, however, one final twist to follow. In a conversation with Susan, Garrett inadvertently reveals that he has been guilty all along; Patti, whose real name was Emma Blucher, was Garrett's former wife and had been pursuing him for money ever since he achieved success as a novelist. He went along with Spencer's scheme because he saw it as a chance to kill her and then be formally proclaimed innocent of her death.

As a thriller, the film has its points of interest, but it fails as a human drama because all the characters are either unsympathetic or uninteresting. Even before the truth about Garrett is revealed, he seems too keen to go along with Spencer's hare-brained scheme, which must make us wonder what his true motives are, and his behaviour involves a good deal of emotional cruelty to Susan, the woman he supposedly loves. Spencer, as another reviewer has pointed out, is the sort of left-liberal ideologue who sees everything in abstract terms without weighing the human cost of his ideas. Roy Thompson, the crusading District Attorney who prosecutes Garrett, is the sort of right-wing ideologue who is motivated less by a genuine concern for law and order than by political ambition. Susan is bland and colourless. Garrett's defence lawyer Jonathan Wilson is a minor figure. The police are hopelessly incompetent, failing to uncover the most elementary facts about the murder victim, including her marriage to Garrett and her true name. The only character who has any spark about her is Dolly, the brassy peroxide-blonde showgirl whom Garrett briefly befriends as part of his scheme.

Despite its theme, the film does not make any serious contribution to the debate on capital punishment. As Spencer points out, fictional stories are of little use in this debate, which is why makers of films attacking the death penalty ("I Want to Live", "10 Rillington Place", "Let Him Have It") have tended to concentrate on real-life miscarriages of justice rather than invented ones. The film glosses over the drawbacks in Spencer's scheme. Apart from the obvious danger of an man being put to death for a crime he did not commit should the scheme go wrong, these drawbacks are legal, moral and practical. What Spencer and Garrett are doing is illegal and they could be prosecuted for wasting police time or conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Morally, Spencer's idea of securing the conviction of an innocent man means that the real murderer will go undetected and free to kill again. Practically, even if Spencer's idea had succeeded perfectly, its success would not have persuaded many supporters of capital punishment to change their minds. It is hard to regard a case in which the defendant engineers his own conviction as a genuine miscarriage of justice.

"Halliwell's Film Guide" describes this film as an ingenious but mechanical thriller, and it is hard to dissent from that judgement. The plot is a far-fetched one, but it is competently handled, even if the final twist did seem rather too obvious. It never succeeds, however, on any level other than that of the mechanical thriller; in the last resort it is clever but cold and pretentious. It is not on the same level as Lang's great noir thriller from three years earlier, "The Big Heat". 6/10

What wonderful plot twists here in this film where a writer is convinced by the newspaper owner to have information planted on him so that he may be arrested in a murder, only for the owner to die in a car crash and the defendant have to go it alone in proving his innocence.

This all comes about due to the editor's fierce opposition to the death penalty. The irony of irony is that it spark's our guy into quite a bit of action. Dana Andrews is the writer who joins in the plot concocted by Sidney Blackmer. Joan Fontaine, Andrews's fiancé and daughter of Blackmer, doesn't know what to believe at first until she comes around, only to have to reverse herself at film's end.

Barbara Nichols really steals the show here in the scenes she is in. With that craggy, annoying, irritating, sarcastic voice, she is the perfect foil for the intentions of Andrews and Blackmer.

PERHAPS SOMEONE HAD the idea of replicating Director Fritz Lang's success at both the critical level as well at the box office with the Spencer Tracy starring vehicle, FURY (MGM, 1936). Although the story lines aren't quite on the same level, they do feature a great deal of court room drama and all of the elements of the detective story; as well as definite influences from Noir Films.

WHAT WE, THE members of the viewing audience are asked to do is bear witness to some highly methodical sorts of criminalized re-enactment of a murder. The police procedural aspect of the story and the e-x-t-e-n-d-e-d contrivances that are presented serve to grind the action to such a halt that seemingly goes on forever.

IN TRYING TO be a little too smart and "cute" with the viewer, the script does some fancy twists, double twists and even a triple or two. When the final reality is revealed, we find ourselves saying, "But of course" rather than "Yeowww!! That's it!" THE CAST ASSEMBLED is better than average with some fine support given from the character players such as: Sidney Blackmer, Barbara Nichols, Arthur Franz, William Boyett and Dan Seymour. They did manage to get us pulling for them to somehow make this a better and more enjoyable film.

OF THE PRINCIPAL players, Dana Andrews and Joan Fontaine are cast in the leads. While their efforts are commendable, they have been showcased to better advantage. Miss Fontaine in particular seems to be quite underused.

AS AN ENTERTAINMENT, this is alright for an otherwise quiet day. You should see it once, just to say you did it. You'll be glad you did!